|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: Afghanistan - get in or get out?
I have to agree with Packerdogz. I love the site, but sometimes you seem to go into Chris Matthews mode.
Ouch!
Hopefully I didn't say,
"We're all Neocons now" or
"I get a thrill up my leg when Obama talks."
What did I say that reminded you of Chris the
Screamer?
Just because the nut-jobs and our incompetent
press parrot the "surge" phrase doesn't mean Obama's thinking fits
into that tiny narrow box. I liked what
he told Mark Knoeller yesterday, who started couching his question by saying,
"I suspect you don't want my colleagues to rely
on leaks until next week." Obama interrupted him saying, "Why stop
now?"
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/11/25/HP/R/26493/PM+Singh+Concludes+US+Visit.aspx
(1st question at about 16:30)
They say Obama is going to send another 35,000
troops to get shot at in a hopeless cause..
How does the "tiny narrow box" make that different
from LBJ, Nixon and Bush?
If we had an actual press in this country, you would have seen this:
"(21 Nov. 2009) NATO’s new training mission for
Afghanistan is activated. This new Alliance mission will merge
with the US-led Combined Security Transition
Command (CSTC-A) to foster new and existing relationships and
build on the already expanding task of training
and mentoring the Afghan National Security Forces in preparation
for the future security and sustainment of Afghanistan
http://www.nato.int/
It sounds like Obama is bringing our allies back
in.
"The increased involvement by NATO member nations
will help train more Afghan soldiers and police officers."
That's fine, but isn't that a PR move?
Do we need help militarily or are we putting
on a show for appearances?
And even if we get 100 countries to join us,
how do we tame a Texas-sized nation of cave-dwelling goat herders?
Cut the man some slack for being deliberate.
It's not his fault we can't keep up with him.
Rachel Maddow can't cover everything, Olbermann
can only cover a half a dozen things,
and the rest of the MSNBC cast is busy yelling
crazy shit at people who are yelling crazy shit.
CNN is covering local hometown news on its front
page tonight: firefighters, burned boy, lost boy,
and dog eats nails). The media list spirals
down from there.
That paragraph confused me.
Obama is escalating a religious land war in Asia
that I don't think can be won.
How does that equal "We
can't keep up with him."
Like I said last issue, if he's got a plan, I'd
sure like to hear it.
But how can he sell this bigger war without using
the same words LBJ, Nixon and Bush used?
I supported Hillary last year, so I trust her
as much as I can trust any politician. She trusts Obama.
So far, Obama hasn't given me any reason to not
trust him. His critics can't make up their mind as to
whether he does too much or not enough.
This guy has already taken on the military industrial complex
and the credit card industry, and is currently
pissing off the health insurance industry and is threatening the
banks that gouged us for bailout money and aren't
extending credit. He's been called a terrorist, a communist,
a socialist, and an illegal alien (and don't
forget nigger). It's clear he has been working the phones and bending
ears to get things moving. Could he do
more? Possibly. But he's also not doing handstands on a bully
pulpit
where his own party can cut his dick off entirely
and publicly humiliate him with it.
That paragraph confused me, too.
I'm having trouble keeping up with you :)
Bill Clinton left us with Peace, Prosperity and
a huge budget surplus. But it didn't happen overnight, and it certainly
didn't happen in his first year. Remember
when Dick Armey said Bill Clinton wasn't his president, and Newt was
accusing him of running the country in the ground,
and Falwell was accusing him of murder, and all the Tim Russerts
were saying he didn't do anything but chase girls
around the Oval office?
What did you expect? A R-R-R-R-Rubber-B-B-Biscuit?
Lowell the Engineer
If I criticize Obama for putting another 35,000 lives at risk, that
doesn't mean I'm a birther handjob.
I'm willing to bet $100 that Obama can't change my mind tonight.
What words can he possibly use to make us think we can win that
war?
I sure hope he doesn't give a campaign-style speech full of nonsense
phrases.
"The fish rots from the head down,"
is NOT a reason to escalate a failed war.
If we were at war with a country with an infrastructure, like Japan or Germany, we could win.
Didn't we lose Vietnam because we weren't equipt to do battle with backwards
people who lived
in tunnels and had a never-ending supply of people and aid coming from
nearby countries?
Isn't this the same, but this time the tunnels are made of stone instead
of dirt?
How can Obama possibly win over there without invading Pakistan, supplier
to the bad guys?
How can Obama possibly win over there when Karzai's brother runs the
heroin trade?
How can Obama possibly win over there when they can attack us and then
run back into Pakistan?
One of the biggest blunders Bush made was failing to secure Iraq's borders,
which allowed suicide bombers
and weapons to come into the country from every direction - isn't that
the same problem in Afghanistan?
...and which part of my argument makes me sound like Chris Matthews?
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog